If a football game is on the NFL network and no one sees it, did it really happen?
The answer in both cases is obviously yes. But there has been a lot of complaining lately about games being shown only on the NFL network which some cable companies do not carry and some (like Comcast in Philly) carry, but on a special sports tier that most people do not have.
So is this such a bad thing?
Well from the NFL's perspective I think its brilliant. It gets people to subscribe to their channel who otherwise would never subscribe. But the publicity is not great. In the long run though, I see it as a positive for them. In 10 years if lots of people have the channel and can watch the exclusive games, who will remember the games from 2006 and 2007 that they missed?
From a diehard fan's perspective it depends on if your cable company offers the channel. A diehard will not care about the $3 or $5 a month for the network. They will care a lot if its not available.
From my perspective (as a casual fan), I just don't care. Over the course of the season, the NFL network may show 10 games, of which 2 or 3 will be of interest. For those I can head over to a friend's house or to a bar (which I did last night).
The NFL network is also a great lead in to my next topic, ala carte cable. My cable package includes a lot of channels, probably close to 300, even without counting the 100 music stations. Of all these channels I would say 95% of my TV viewing comprises:
ESPN & ESPN2
Network channels (Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC)
Comedy Central
Turner Classic Movies
TNT
TBS
Comcast SportsNet & CN8
Versus
The Encore suite of movie channels
MOJO
G4
Other movie channels (IFC, Fox Movies, Flix, etc)
I will also occasionally watch A&E, Bravo, USA, Travel Channel, AMC, FX, Spike,
Food Network.
This totals roughly 35, maybe 40 channels. The rest I completely ignore. So why should I need to pay for them? The real reason is that Comcast and other cable providers say so. Well what is stopping a new cable company from offering channels ala carte?
I suspect that the networks are part of the problem. If one company owns 10 different channels, they may require that all 10 be included together.
The advantages to ala carte are that the consumers will likely save money, choosing only the channels they are likely to watch. In addition this forces networks to put out better products. Right now a lot of channels know they're included in all cable packages, so there is less incentive to improve.
The one disadvantage I see is the possibility that start up channels will have more difficulty breaking through. I started watching MOJO and G4 because we had them and now I enjoy a few shows on the channels, but I'd never have seen them if they weren't automatically included. Of course, if a channel promotes itself correctly, this may not be an issue (example: if the major league baseball network ever gets off the ground I would order even without seeing it because I know what the product would be.)
Overall, I'd like to see ala carte choices. However, I someone doubt this will be happening any time soon.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
And the award goes to ...
The baseball awards have been handed out so now its time for some fun facts. I'm not going to delve into whether or not voters made correct choices, there are enough people doing that already.
Rollins won the MVP a year after Ryan Howard pocketed the award. How many times have different teammates won the award in consecutive years? Well its happened way more than I orginally expected, 20 times including this year. But then I realized with only 8 teams in a league, this would happen more often. 4 times, we had 3 different teammates win in consecutive years. A full list is here:
Walter Johnson and Roger Peckinpaugh for the Senators in 1924-25 (although AL MVP rules at the time allowed a player to only win the award once, so Johnson was ineligible in 1925)
Rogers Hornsby and Bob O'Farrell for the Cardinals in 1925-26
Lefty Grove and Jimmie Foxx for the A's in 1931-32 (Foxx won again in 1933)
Mickey Cochrange and Hank Greenburg for the Tigers in 1934-35
Ernie Lombardi and Bucky Walters and Frank McCormick !!! for the Red in 1938-40
Joe DiMaggio and Joe Gordon and Spud Chandler !!! for the Yankees in 1941-43
Mort Cooper and Stan Musial and Marty Marion !!! for the Cardinals in 1942-44
Phil Rizzuto and Yogi Berra for the Yankees in 1950-51
Yogi Berra and Mickey Mantle for the Yankees in 1955-56 (Berra also won in 54, Mantle also won in 57)
Roy Campanella and Don Newcombe in 1955-56
Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle and Elston Howard !!! in 1961-63 (Maris also won in 60)
Maury Wills and Sandy Koufax in 1962-63
Orlando Cepeda and Bob Gibson in 1967-68
Johnny Bench and Pete Rose in 1972-73
Joe Morgan and George Foster in 1976-77 (Morgan also won in 75)
Dave Parker and Willie Stargell in 1978-79 (Stargell tied for the award)
Rollie Fingers and Robin Yount in 1981-82
Juan Gonzalez and Ivan Rodriguez in 1998-99
Jeff Kent and Barry Bonds in 2000-01 (Bonds also won from 02-04)
Chase Utley will have a lot of pressure on him next year to get the three-peat.
Also note that this has happened 7 times with the Cy Young.
And lastly on this topic, the Dodgers once had 5 consecutive rookies of the year. I did not confirm, but I assume this is a record
For an award that voters seem to just vote for last years winners, the gold glove had 10 first time winners, by my count. It doesn't mean much, but I thought it was interesting.
Rollins won the MVP a year after Ryan Howard pocketed the award. How many times have different teammates won the award in consecutive years? Well its happened way more than I orginally expected, 20 times including this year. But then I realized with only 8 teams in a league, this would happen more often. 4 times, we had 3 different teammates win in consecutive years. A full list is here:
Walter Johnson and Roger Peckinpaugh for the Senators in 1924-25 (although AL MVP rules at the time allowed a player to only win the award once, so Johnson was ineligible in 1925)
Rogers Hornsby and Bob O'Farrell for the Cardinals in 1925-26
Lefty Grove and Jimmie Foxx for the A's in 1931-32 (Foxx won again in 1933)
Mickey Cochrange and Hank Greenburg for the Tigers in 1934-35
Ernie Lombardi and Bucky Walters and Frank McCormick !!! for the Red in 1938-40
Joe DiMaggio and Joe Gordon and Spud Chandler !!! for the Yankees in 1941-43
Mort Cooper and Stan Musial and Marty Marion !!! for the Cardinals in 1942-44
Phil Rizzuto and Yogi Berra for the Yankees in 1950-51
Yogi Berra and Mickey Mantle for the Yankees in 1955-56 (Berra also won in 54, Mantle also won in 57)
Roy Campanella and Don Newcombe in 1955-56
Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle and Elston Howard !!! in 1961-63 (Maris also won in 60)
Maury Wills and Sandy Koufax in 1962-63
Orlando Cepeda and Bob Gibson in 1967-68
Johnny Bench and Pete Rose in 1972-73
Joe Morgan and George Foster in 1976-77 (Morgan also won in 75)
Dave Parker and Willie Stargell in 1978-79 (Stargell tied for the award)
Rollie Fingers and Robin Yount in 1981-82
Juan Gonzalez and Ivan Rodriguez in 1998-99
Jeff Kent and Barry Bonds in 2000-01 (Bonds also won from 02-04)
Chase Utley will have a lot of pressure on him next year to get the three-peat.
Also note that this has happened 7 times with the Cy Young.
And lastly on this topic, the Dodgers once had 5 consecutive rookies of the year. I did not confirm, but I assume this is a record
For an award that voters seem to just vote for last years winners, the gold glove had 10 first time winners, by my count. It doesn't mean much, but I thought it was interesting.
Eating in Philly
We spent a lot of time in center city over the weekend, so I thought I'd review some new places we visited.
On Friday night we went to Marathon Grill on 16th & Sansom. The place was not too large, but we had no trouble getting a table. The service was a little slow, but it was a Friday night. The menu sounded really good and I had a tough time deciding. The seafood bisque did not impress me, it was really just some shreded fish, almost like what you'd get out of a can of tuna. I had a turkey BLT with guacamole for dinner. Unfortunately, you couldn't really taste the guacamole, so it was just a BLT. The meal came with a side of potato salad that was good. The beer selection was nothing impressive, I believe a Flying Fish, Yuengling, and one other decent tap I can;t remember. Overall, an ok place, but not one that I'm in a hurry to get back to.
After dinner we went to Lucky Strike to bowl. Again I'd never been there before, so I didn't know what to expect. It was fairly posh for my normal drinking nights. I drank Sam Adams Octoberfest, which isn't my favorite octoberfest, but is still good. The bowling was of course fun, albiet a bit pricy.
On Saturday we started our night with a pre-dinner drink at Zot on Lombard between 2nd and Front Sts. The place is a beer bar, specializing in Belgians. They had 4 beers on tap, Karmeliet Triple, Blanche de Bruxelles, Delirium Tremens and I can't remember the other one. I had the Karmeliet which was very tasty. The wife had some wine, their wine selection didn't look too bad. After dinner we returned here and I had a few other Belgian beers, Gouden, Brugse Zot and of course more Karmeliet. Interesting fact, they run a happy hour with 1/2 priced drafts from 10-midnight. We of course took advantage of this. Overall, the place had a good Belgian beer selection, mostly in bottles, and was not nearly as crowded as a place like Monks or Eulogy (possibly because it is much newer). The food menu looked good, including about 20 kinds of mussels, but we did not eat there.
Between Zot visits, we eat next door at Bistro Romano. The restaurant runs some dinner theaters, although we didn't participate. We were seated downstairs at a booth. We had a bottle of Nero D'Alova which was good, and priced around $30. The wife and I split a smoked mozzarella appetizer which was very good, even though there wasn't much to it besides the cheese. I had a glazed duck for my entree. The portions were very large, and my duck was tasty, although maybe a touch overdone. The only thing I didn't like were the peppercorns. I like when things are flavored with peppercorns, but I hate actually biting into them. The wife had a fusilli pasta dish with chicken and peppers. The toppings were good, but the pasta was way past al dente. Overall it was a good place and other things on the menu looking interesting to try as well.
And to close out the new restaurants post, we got take out from Alex's pizza last night. They are a little hole in the wall pizza place on the corner of Pechin and Leverington. The pizzas are smaller than some, a large fed 2 people well, but not too pricy ($9.50 with 1 topping). The pizza is fairly thin crust, a bit too crispy for my taste. The sauce was ok, could have used some more spices and the cheese was ok, but slightly lacking in quantity. Not a great pizza, but better than most of what you'll find around Manayunk.
On Friday night we went to Marathon Grill on 16th & Sansom. The place was not too large, but we had no trouble getting a table. The service was a little slow, but it was a Friday night. The menu sounded really good and I had a tough time deciding. The seafood bisque did not impress me, it was really just some shreded fish, almost like what you'd get out of a can of tuna. I had a turkey BLT with guacamole for dinner. Unfortunately, you couldn't really taste the guacamole, so it was just a BLT. The meal came with a side of potato salad that was good. The beer selection was nothing impressive, I believe a Flying Fish, Yuengling, and one other decent tap I can;t remember. Overall, an ok place, but not one that I'm in a hurry to get back to.
After dinner we went to Lucky Strike to bowl. Again I'd never been there before, so I didn't know what to expect. It was fairly posh for my normal drinking nights. I drank Sam Adams Octoberfest, which isn't my favorite octoberfest, but is still good. The bowling was of course fun, albiet a bit pricy.
On Saturday we started our night with a pre-dinner drink at Zot on Lombard between 2nd and Front Sts. The place is a beer bar, specializing in Belgians. They had 4 beers on tap, Karmeliet Triple, Blanche de Bruxelles, Delirium Tremens and I can't remember the other one. I had the Karmeliet which was very tasty. The wife had some wine, their wine selection didn't look too bad. After dinner we returned here and I had a few other Belgian beers, Gouden, Brugse Zot and of course more Karmeliet. Interesting fact, they run a happy hour with 1/2 priced drafts from 10-midnight. We of course took advantage of this. Overall, the place had a good Belgian beer selection, mostly in bottles, and was not nearly as crowded as a place like Monks or Eulogy (possibly because it is much newer). The food menu looked good, including about 20 kinds of mussels, but we did not eat there.
Between Zot visits, we eat next door at Bistro Romano. The restaurant runs some dinner theaters, although we didn't participate. We were seated downstairs at a booth. We had a bottle of Nero D'Alova which was good, and priced around $30. The wife and I split a smoked mozzarella appetizer which was very good, even though there wasn't much to it besides the cheese. I had a glazed duck for my entree. The portions were very large, and my duck was tasty, although maybe a touch overdone. The only thing I didn't like were the peppercorns. I like when things are flavored with peppercorns, but I hate actually biting into them. The wife had a fusilli pasta dish with chicken and peppers. The toppings were good, but the pasta was way past al dente. Overall it was a good place and other things on the menu looking interesting to try as well.
And to close out the new restaurants post, we got take out from Alex's pizza last night. They are a little hole in the wall pizza place on the corner of Pechin and Leverington. The pizzas are smaller than some, a large fed 2 people well, but not too pricy ($9.50 with 1 topping). The pizza is fairly thin crust, a bit too crispy for my taste. The sauce was ok, could have used some more spices and the cheese was ok, but slightly lacking in quantity. Not a great pizza, but better than most of what you'll find around Manayunk.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
hockey stats
The NHL has gone through several somewhat major rule changes over the years, which makes it somewhat difficult to compare players and teams across eras. So here's my attempt at rectifying this.
From the beginning of the NHL up to and including the 1998-99 season, points were awarded as follows:
Win in regulation - 2 points
Loss in regulation - 0 points
Win in overtime - 2 points
Loss in overtime - 0 points
Tie - 1 point
This meant that for every game, 2 points were awarded. So the number of points in the standings was (# of teams) * (# of games in the season)
From the 1999-00 season until 2003-04 season, points were awarded as:
Win in regulation - 2 points
Loss in regulation - 0 points
Win in overtime - 2 points
Loss in overtime - 1 points
Tie - 1 point
The difference is the point for an overtime loss. The idea was that teams were playing for a tie in overtime rather than risk earning nothing, so they gave both teams a point going into overtime, then if someone scored they got another point. What this did was increase the number of points in the standings, making it (# of teams) * (# of games in the season) + (# of games won in overtime). More than adding points, this also added variation to the number of points each season, leading to different playoff qualifying situtaions each year.
Since 2005-06, the scoring is:
Win in regulation - 2 points
Loss in regulation - 0 points
Win in overtime - 2 points
Loss in overtime - 1 points
Win in shootout - 2 points
Loss in shootout - 1 points
Ties are eliminated, so every overtime game will yield 3 points. Since shootout wins and overtime wins are identical from a points perspective, I'll just refer to both of these as OT wins. So the number of points in the system is (# of teams) * (# of games in the season) + (# of games going to overtime). We still have variation and an even larger number of points than the other two settings.
So who was better, the 05-06 Red Wings with 124 points, 01-02 Red Wings with 116 points, or 97-98 Stars with 109 points?? (These are arbitrary comparisons)
One option is to look at the ratio of points earned to the average # of points a team earned in those 3 years.
97-98 teams averaged 82, ratio is 1.33
01-02 teams averaged 86.03, ratio is 1.35
05-06 teams averaged 91.47, ratio is 1.36
We can alternatively look at the number of standard deviations each is away from the mean:
97-98 Stars - 1.71
01-02 Red Wings - 1.995
05-06 Red Wings - 1.976
The 109 points is clearly not quite as impressive, but the 116 and 124 look very close. The ratios are nearly identical, with the 116 being more SDs away from the mean, largely due to the increase in variance in points under the current system. Of course, the evidence is really telling us that 116 in 01-02 is roughly equivalent to 124 in 05-06 (or any year in today's system). So always be weary of comparing team points without acknowledging the system under which it was obtained.
So what does it mean for this season?? Well last year 22.8% of games went to OT. So far a sixth of the way into this season, only 13.9% of games are going to OT. So instead of 2741 points last year, we're on pace for 2631 points, which is only slightly more than we saw in the previous points system. If this keeps up (I don't have game by game data to see if this is possibly a typical early season trend), expect teams to need fewer points to reach the playoffs. Instead of 93.75 (the average in the past 2 years), a team might need only 90.
Of course if Ottawa keeps hogging all the points, things could change.
The other implication of the new system is on goalie stats, but that will need to wait for another post.
From the beginning of the NHL up to and including the 1998-99 season, points were awarded as follows:
Win in regulation - 2 points
Loss in regulation - 0 points
Win in overtime - 2 points
Loss in overtime - 0 points
Tie - 1 point
This meant that for every game, 2 points were awarded. So the number of points in the standings was (# of teams) * (# of games in the season)
From the 1999-00 season until 2003-04 season, points were awarded as:
Win in regulation - 2 points
Loss in regulation - 0 points
Win in overtime - 2 points
Loss in overtime - 1 points
Tie - 1 point
The difference is the point for an overtime loss. The idea was that teams were playing for a tie in overtime rather than risk earning nothing, so they gave both teams a point going into overtime, then if someone scored they got another point. What this did was increase the number of points in the standings, making it (# of teams) * (# of games in the season) + (# of games won in overtime). More than adding points, this also added variation to the number of points each season, leading to different playoff qualifying situtaions each year.
Since 2005-06, the scoring is:
Win in regulation - 2 points
Loss in regulation - 0 points
Win in overtime - 2 points
Loss in overtime - 1 points
Win in shootout - 2 points
Loss in shootout - 1 points
Ties are eliminated, so every overtime game will yield 3 points. Since shootout wins and overtime wins are identical from a points perspective, I'll just refer to both of these as OT wins. So the number of points in the system is (# of teams) * (# of games in the season) + (# of games going to overtime). We still have variation and an even larger number of points than the other two settings.
So who was better, the 05-06 Red Wings with 124 points, 01-02 Red Wings with 116 points, or 97-98 Stars with 109 points?? (These are arbitrary comparisons)
One option is to look at the ratio of points earned to the average # of points a team earned in those 3 years.
97-98 teams averaged 82, ratio is 1.33
01-02 teams averaged 86.03, ratio is 1.35
05-06 teams averaged 91.47, ratio is 1.36
We can alternatively look at the number of standard deviations each is away from the mean:
97-98 Stars - 1.71
01-02 Red Wings - 1.995
05-06 Red Wings - 1.976
The 109 points is clearly not quite as impressive, but the 116 and 124 look very close. The ratios are nearly identical, with the 116 being more SDs away from the mean, largely due to the increase in variance in points under the current system. Of course, the evidence is really telling us that 116 in 01-02 is roughly equivalent to 124 in 05-06 (or any year in today's system). So always be weary of comparing team points without acknowledging the system under which it was obtained.
So what does it mean for this season?? Well last year 22.8% of games went to OT. So far a sixth of the way into this season, only 13.9% of games are going to OT. So instead of 2741 points last year, we're on pace for 2631 points, which is only slightly more than we saw in the previous points system. If this keeps up (I don't have game by game data to see if this is possibly a typical early season trend), expect teams to need fewer points to reach the playoffs. Instead of 93.75 (the average in the past 2 years), a team might need only 90.
Of course if Ottawa keeps hogging all the points, things could change.
The other implication of the new system is on goalie stats, but that will need to wait for another post.
At a loss for words
As of yesterday, the writer's guild is officially on strike. While I'm not a person who will automatically side with unions, I am definitely on the writers' side here. The main reason for the strike as I understand it is the negotiations over newer forms of media including internet content. The studios (and probably most management) tends to try and create the rules or carry over old rules when new forms arise. Similar instances occurred when the home video market took off.
The last writers strike was in 1988 and lasted 5 months. I have no idea how long this will last, but hopefully it will be quick.
Supposedly reality shows will be unaffected by the strike, but I hate most reality shows, so this does not bode well for me. Two of my favorite shows, The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are already on re-runs. I've read that the Office and Scrubs have a few episodes written that they can shoot, although it must be somewhat confusing for the office when half their stars are also writers. (See this site for more Office discussion). The other rumor is that Scrubs will not have a series finale.
I'm also curious how other shows with continuously running themes such as 24 will handle the strike. Ignoring the fact that the premise of 24 is that a season is 24 episodes, I would imagine that no more than a third of the season is written. If the strike could last until spring, then they might be better off delaying the start of the season (scheduled for January).
I'm guessing movies will be least effected since writing takes place far earlier in the production timeline. Plus if you watch TV and movies you get the impression that Hollywood has billions and billions of scripts floating around.
So I guess I'll be spending the next few months catching up on movies and shows I've missed over the past few years and watching more football and hockey. If anyone has heard info on other shows, please comment.
The last writers strike was in 1988 and lasted 5 months. I have no idea how long this will last, but hopefully it will be quick.
Supposedly reality shows will be unaffected by the strike, but I hate most reality shows, so this does not bode well for me. Two of my favorite shows, The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are already on re-runs. I've read that the Office and Scrubs have a few episodes written that they can shoot, although it must be somewhat confusing for the office when half their stars are also writers. (See this site for more Office discussion). The other rumor is that Scrubs will not have a series finale.
I'm also curious how other shows with continuously running themes such as 24 will handle the strike. Ignoring the fact that the premise of 24 is that a season is 24 episodes, I would imagine that no more than a third of the season is written. If the strike could last until spring, then they might be better off delaying the start of the season (scheduled for January).
I'm guessing movies will be least effected since writing takes place far earlier in the production timeline. Plus if you watch TV and movies you get the impression that Hollywood has billions and billions of scripts floating around.
So I guess I'll be spending the next few months catching up on movies and shows I've missed over the past few years and watching more football and hockey. If anyone has heard info on other shows, please comment.
Mad Dog
One of my favorite pitchers of all time, Greg Maddux, re-signed with the Padres for another year. Obviously at 41 he's no longer the pitcher he was in the mid 90s, but he's still a slightly above average start who stays healthy. Since 1988, the fewest starts he's made in a non-strike shortened year was 33!! For comparison's sake, Pedro Martinez has started 33 games 3 times, but thats the most he's ever started.
In fact, as scary as this sounds, if Maddux pitches 3 more seasons and gets 100 starts (I know its a big if, but a pitcher of his style can last), he'll be only 8 starts shy of tying Cy Young.
Since we know he'll pitch in 2008, lets look at some numbers.
He's 7 wins shy of Clemens at 354, which he should get easily (assuming Clemens actually retires). He's 14 shy of Kid Nichols and 16 shy of Spahn. Last year he had 14 wins, so this range is possible.
If he stays healthy, he'll end the season in 4th for all time games started, passing Clemens (they are tied), Carlton and Niekro
He's currently 16th in innings pitched and could pass Clemens, Bobby Mathews (who??) and Blyleven.
He never was much of a strikeout guy, but still sits at 11th all time. He should pass Niekro.
I can't say how long he'll pitch, but I'll be rooting for him.
In fact, as scary as this sounds, if Maddux pitches 3 more seasons and gets 100 starts (I know its a big if, but a pitcher of his style can last), he'll be only 8 starts shy of tying Cy Young.
Since we know he'll pitch in 2008, lets look at some numbers.
He's 7 wins shy of Clemens at 354, which he should get easily (assuming Clemens actually retires). He's 14 shy of Kid Nichols and 16 shy of Spahn. Last year he had 14 wins, so this range is possible.
If he stays healthy, he'll end the season in 4th for all time games started, passing Clemens (they are tied), Carlton and Niekro
He's currently 16th in innings pitched and could pass Clemens, Bobby Mathews (who??) and Blyleven.
He never was much of a strikeout guy, but still sits at 11th all time. He should pass Niekro.
I can't say how long he'll pitch, but I'll be rooting for him.
Monday, November 5, 2007
random thoughts
The Gmail inbox always has a link on top to some random website. The title of the website is related to whatever emails you've recently been reading. These are quite humorous to me, especially when the keywords in the email they read have multiple meanings.
Our neighborhood (Manayunk) has lots of college students and other young adults, so weekend parties are common. Walking around on a Saturday or Sunday morning will show you the evidence of the parties such as beer bottles sometimes with a little beer still in them. Usually the beer is crap, but yesterday I walked by an empty bottle of Flying Dog Dogtoberfest and I smiled.
Daylight savings time ended this past weekend, which gave us an extra hour!! This year the switch was made a week later than usual, but many people had calendars printed before the change was implemented and possibly got confused. My parents very nearly would have missed a flight if I didn't mention it to them. Is the change in DST worth the potential confusion? I say no.
My DVR is set to record a bunch of series, but it won't record them in HD. Even if I set the recording on the HD channel, it will resort to the regular version of that channel. Anybody else encounter this problem?
My office instant message program has a feature where you can select people and invite them to a meeting on the spot. However, if you don't select anybody it will invite everybody in your list, which can be quite long. I just got one of these invites. It doesn't bother me too much, I laugh at it, partially because I committed this error when I started working here.
The Sunday night football game yesterday consisted of the broadcast being "green". This does not mean people wore their Eagles jerseys, but rather that the broadcast was eco-friendly, including the studio being in darkness. Excuse me if I'm not impressed with an event that flies hundreds of people around the country and then turns the lights out. I hate these bullshit, purely symbolic acts.
Our neighborhood (Manayunk) has lots of college students and other young adults, so weekend parties are common. Walking around on a Saturday or Sunday morning will show you the evidence of the parties such as beer bottles sometimes with a little beer still in them. Usually the beer is crap, but yesterday I walked by an empty bottle of Flying Dog Dogtoberfest and I smiled.
Daylight savings time ended this past weekend, which gave us an extra hour!! This year the switch was made a week later than usual, but many people had calendars printed before the change was implemented and possibly got confused. My parents very nearly would have missed a flight if I didn't mention it to them. Is the change in DST worth the potential confusion? I say no.
My DVR is set to record a bunch of series, but it won't record them in HD. Even if I set the recording on the HD channel, it will resort to the regular version of that channel. Anybody else encounter this problem?
My office instant message program has a feature where you can select people and invite them to a meeting on the spot. However, if you don't select anybody it will invite everybody in your list, which can be quite long. I just got one of these invites. It doesn't bother me too much, I laugh at it, partially because I committed this error when I started working here.
The Sunday night football game yesterday consisted of the broadcast being "green". This does not mean people wore their Eagles jerseys, but rather that the broadcast was eco-friendly, including the studio being in darkness. Excuse me if I'm not impressed with an event that flies hundreds of people around the country and then turns the lights out. I hate these bullshit, purely symbolic acts.
When life gives you lemons ...
some people make lemonade.
I make limoncello.
For those unfamiliar, limoncello is an Italian liquor made from lemons (obviously) that is often served (chilled) as an after dinner drink.
I got a recipe from my parents and decided to make some. The process is fairly easy, although zesting lemons can be tiring. I finished it this weekend and had some last night. It was pretty good. I was very worried about the amount of sugar added. I didn't want an overly sweet or overly bitter drink, but it came out very nice. The good news is I have 5 1/4 liters (about 1.3 gallons), so it will last me a long time.
Stop by if you want to try.
I make limoncello.
For those unfamiliar, limoncello is an Italian liquor made from lemons (obviously) that is often served (chilled) as an after dinner drink.
I got a recipe from my parents and decided to make some. The process is fairly easy, although zesting lemons can be tiring. I finished it this weekend and had some last night. It was pretty good. I was very worried about the amount of sugar added. I didn't want an overly sweet or overly bitter drink, but it came out very nice. The good news is I have 5 1/4 liters (about 1.3 gallons), so it will last me a long time.
Stop by if you want to try.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Tennis update
Federer lost to Nalbandian again.
Did I just write that?
Anyway, we're down to 6 as Berdych loses missing out on Nalbandian's gifts and the 8th place holder heading into Paris (Haas) also loses.
Gonzalez can't like Federer going out, but he'll still advance unless Youzhny beats the Gasquet/Murray winner in the final OR Robredo plays the Gasquet/Murray winner in the final.
Robredo is in ok shape. He must win against Baghdatis (who is up 5-3 in the first as I write this). That could be enough, but may not be, we'll see.
Gasquet/Murray - Again these two are paired because the winner will make the semis. If Robredo loses, that will likely be enough, if he wins, they'll need to win another match as well.
Youzhny - Beat Nadal, beat the Robredo/Baghdatis winner, win in the final and he's in.
Baghdatis - Still needs to win, and also needs the Nalbandian/Ferrer winner to advance to the final. Much better chances than yesterday, but not fantastic.
Did I just write that?
Anyway, we're down to 6 as Berdych loses missing out on Nalbandian's gifts and the 8th place holder heading into Paris (Haas) also loses.
Gonzalez can't like Federer going out, but he'll still advance unless Youzhny beats the Gasquet/Murray winner in the final OR Robredo plays the Gasquet/Murray winner in the final.
Robredo is in ok shape. He must win against Baghdatis (who is up 5-3 in the first as I write this). That could be enough, but may not be, we'll see.
Gasquet/Murray - Again these two are paired because the winner will make the semis. If Robredo loses, that will likely be enough, if he wins, they'll need to win another match as well.
Youzhny - Beat Nadal, beat the Robredo/Baghdatis winner, win in the final and he's in.
Baghdatis - Still needs to win, and also needs the Nalbandian/Ferrer winner to advance to the final. Much better chances than yesterday, but not fantastic.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Booking a flight from Paris to Shanghai
The tennis season is coming to a close. The final masters event in Paris is currently in the round of 16, and next week we have the masters cup for the top 8 players in Shanghai. 6 players (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Davydenko, Roddick, and Ferrer) have locked up spots in the tourney. The results in Paris will determine who will get the final 2 spots.
Going into this tournament, an amazing 18 people still had a chance at one of the two spots. (Hewitt would have made 19 had he played in the tournament). Well at this point, several have lost, or in the case of Nalbandian other results have hurt him and we're down to 9 (as of 10:00am in Philly). So lets handicap the 9, in the order they were entering the tournament.
Gonzalez - lost in the 2nd round, but had a decent hold on 7th place entering Paris. Needs to be passed by 2 people, which will only happen if the finals are between 2 of the following players. So he's got a very good shot at Shanghai.
Haas - In 8th place entering Paris, but has the daunting task of Nadal in his quarter. Needs to make the semis at least, I'm not liking his chances.
Robredo - Won earlier today to make the quarters and will face Baghdatis tomorrow. A win there could be enough.
Blake, Murray, Gasquet - These 3 I'm grouping together because they're in the same quarter and have almost the same number of points. They lucked out when Djokovic lost, meaning one of the 3 will make the semifinals. Dependent upon Robredo and Haas, that could be enough to get the winner to Shanghai. Blake plays Gasquet today and the winner takes on Murray tomorrow.
Berdych - Will need to beat Ferrer and then Federer (or Nalbandian) and even that will most likely not be enough, chances very slim
Youzhny - If he wins the tournament, he'll get enough points, otherwise no chance.
Baghdatis - Very slim chance. He needs to win, plus he needs to play Nalbandian, Federer or Ferrer in the final.
So other than Gonzalez, Robredo is possibly in the best position, especially since he's already won today. I'll be cheering for Blake, but I rarely have much hope when I do that.
UPDATE: Blake holds to form and loses. He is out and tomorrow Murray and Gasquet will play. Nadal also won, meaning Haas (or Youzhny) would need to beat him.
Going into this tournament, an amazing 18 people still had a chance at one of the two spots. (Hewitt would have made 19 had he played in the tournament). Well at this point, several have lost, or in the case of Nalbandian other results have hurt him and we're down to 9 (as of 10:00am in Philly). So lets handicap the 9, in the order they were entering the tournament.
Gonzalez - lost in the 2nd round, but had a decent hold on 7th place entering Paris. Needs to be passed by 2 people, which will only happen if the finals are between 2 of the following players. So he's got a very good shot at Shanghai.
Haas - In 8th place entering Paris, but has the daunting task of Nadal in his quarter. Needs to make the semis at least, I'm not liking his chances.
Robredo - Won earlier today to make the quarters and will face Baghdatis tomorrow. A win there could be enough.
Blake, Murray, Gasquet - These 3 I'm grouping together because they're in the same quarter and have almost the same number of points. They lucked out when Djokovic lost, meaning one of the 3 will make the semifinals. Dependent upon Robredo and Haas, that could be enough to get the winner to Shanghai. Blake plays Gasquet today and the winner takes on Murray tomorrow.
Berdych - Will need to beat Ferrer and then Federer (or Nalbandian) and even that will most likely not be enough, chances very slim
Youzhny - If he wins the tournament, he'll get enough points, otherwise no chance.
Baghdatis - Very slim chance. He needs to win, plus he needs to play Nalbandian, Federer or Ferrer in the final.
So other than Gonzalez, Robredo is possibly in the best position, especially since he's already won today. I'll be cheering for Blake, but I rarely have much hope when I do that.
UPDATE: Blake holds to form and loses. He is out and tomorrow Murray and Gasquet will play. Nadal also won, meaning Haas (or Youzhny) would need to beat him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)